1 50 4 https://highway89.org/files/original/6f05335e76d97b4c65650df77b6ecd1a.pdf b7f5ed30584e80515047302111f5f8be PDF Text Text August 12, 1994 Mr. Dave Berg Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Dear Dave: Enclosed are the responses of Bruce Pendery, Steve Flint, and Shawn Swaner to the working copy of the Logan Canyon Highway Record of Decision (ROD) that you provided us with. We thank you for the opportunity to review the ROD before it is signed. Sincerely, Bruce Pendery cc: Nathan Hult Jeff Appel EPA Denver Office EPA Washington Office FHWA Region Office FHWA Washington Office �COMMENTS OF BRUCE PENDERY REASONS WHY A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) SHOULD BE PREPARED The extreme deficiencies in the Logan Canyon Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS and FEIS) that indicate an SEIS should be prepared have been brought to your attention previously (see letters from EPA, Haley and Stolebarger, and Appel and Mattsson, among others, submitted in response to the DEIS and FEIS). More particularly, the letter from Appel and Mattsson (see Appendix B of the ROD) pointed out that this whole process has been "out of sync" with what NEPA requires since the DEIS was essentially a scoping document, the FEIS functioned as DEIS, and so forth. This is not a matter of quibbling over details. At the core of the NEPA process is a policy that decisions significantly affecting the human environment will not be made arbitrarily and capriciously, and will be made with opportunities for informed public participation. By placing the whole NEPA process with regard to Logan Canyon out of sync, UDOT has violated those fundamental principles, thus the need for an SEIS. Safety provides a major illustration for this contention. Safety is a purpose and need identified for this project (see ROD, FEIS, DEIS). to the project. It is not a peripheral concern, it is central It is not a stretch to say that for many people the whole Logan Canyon project boils down to weighing environmental impacts of the project versus safety impacts. 1 Yet �the safety data which are used to support and rationalize the safety purpose and need (and the attendant preferred alternative) have been and continue to be seriously in error. As early as a 1986 public hearing, UDOT attempted to present incorrect safety data to the public as a justification for the project, despite knowing the data were flawed. Environmentalists were forced to point this error out at the public hearing so as to get UDOT not to use it. And even at this late date in the process, the safety data in the FEIS has had to be recalculated for presentation in the ROD because once again environmentalists pointed out the obvious flaws plaguing the data presented in the FEIS (see Bridgerland Audubon Society, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, and Ron Lanner letters in ROD Appendix B). Thus, the safety data in the ROD is new information that has never been presented to the public (see Appendix A of the ROD as well as the ROD itself which have large sections devoted to explaining what went wrong with the safety analysis in the FEIS). Moreover, and most shockingly, the safety data in the ROD are still wrong, as the letter from Steve Flint, contained herein, points out. So at this almost terminal date in the NEPA process we still have flawed data being used to support a major purpose and need for the Logan Canyon Project. And the significance of this is that informed public participation in this process cannot take place. All the hundreds of people who commented on the DEIS and FEIS were presented with safety information that was wrong, as 2 �the need to correct this information in the ROD demonstrates. And the ROD--even if the safety data in it were now correct--will not be seen by the vast majority of people who are concerned about this project. ROD's--almost by definition--are not intended to be vehicles for public participation. Thus, the significance of UDOT's out of sync approach to the NEPA process becomes clear: not only is the process out of sync, but with each step up the NEPA ladder toward project approval fewer and fewer people are able to review the project, and those who previously reviewed the project were presented with incorrect data purporting to support UDOT's preferred alternative. Therefore, an SEIS is needed not only because the data presented have been repeatedly wrong in the past, but also because each time UDOT presents the "corrected" data, fewer people are able to participate in the evaluating the decision the data supposedly supports. UDOT tries to avoid the need for preparing an SEIS, with its attendant wide-ranging public participation, by stating that certain individuals have been closely involved in the development of the modified preferred alternative (see, e.g., ROD Appendix B page 39, but this same statement appears in numerous other places in the ROD). But involving five individuals (Bruce Pendery, Shawn Swaner, Steve Flint, Nathan Hult, Jeff Appel) in this process--while greatly appreciated and we believe productive-simply cannot substitute for full-scale public involvement in an SEIS process. As has become clear recently, public sentiment 3 �regarding this project is simply too diverse and widespread to believe that the above five people adequately provide for "public involvement" when a basic purpose and need for the project has never been adequately presented to the public. While we are viewed as knowledgeable about this project in the environmental community and to some extent are considered leaders, we simply cannot and do not represent the concerns of the hundreds--perhaps thousands--of people concerned about Logan Canyon. If UDOT wants informed public participation in this NEPA process it must provide for that via and SEIS. In addition to the fact informed public participation has been hampered, UDOT's modified preferred alternative is a arbitrary and capricious decision. The DEIS, FEIS, and ROD all make much of the fact safety will be improved if the preferred alternative is implemented., But what basis can there be for that assertion when the information it is based on has been flawed since at least 1986 and continues to be flawed? I have largely exhausted the topic of why an SEIS is needed. However, I will point out that the same analysis applies to 4(f) sites and to wildlife. The 4(f) documentation in the FEIS was also wrong in a number of instances and a has had to be corrected (see ROD Appendix A, 4(f) Map section, as well as the ROD itself). Likewise, UDOT presented essentially no information in the FEIS about the numerous sensitive species in Logan Canyon (see ROD Appendix B pages 28 and 35). The ROD contains some information on these species (see ROD Appendix A, USFS Biological 4 �Assessment). Thus, just as for safety, informed public participation could not take place in regard to these critical issues because the information was wrong or absent. Moreover, simply presenting the information in the largely nonpublic ROD phase of the NEPA process does not correct the problem. CURRENT LEVEL OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE MODIFIED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY Repeatedly in the ROD UDOT states that consensus has been reached with the environmental community with regards to the modified preferred alternative. That is an incorrect statement, which we have made clear to UDOT. Not only is it incorrect, it makes it more unlikely compromise will be reached because those most opposed to the project would deeply resent UDOT unilaterally announcing that consensus exists. Let me be clear. discussions with UDOT. Since last December we have had a several The tone of those meetings has been constructive and positive. I personally want that process to continue because I believe compromise is preferable to confrontation. However, it is my opinion that a fully acceptable compromise has not been reached yet. Let me explain why. As the modified preferred alternative stands, conservationists would get most of what they want in 14% of the canyon (road stays on current width and alignment between mileposts 383.5 to 387.5, although there could be some curve cuts we don't believe are necessary). UDOT gets everything it wants 5 �in 42% of the canyon (full u.s. highway standard between mileposts 399.8 to 411.8, with almost 8 miles of that 12 miles having a passing lane). Neither UDOT or conservationists get exactly what they want in 43% of the project area (mileposts 387.5 to 399.8). At a meeting in early July Dave Berg asked me how far along toward compromise we were. Based on the above considerations, I said I thought we were 75% of the way there. about where we still stand. I believe that's Seventy-five percent of a potential compromise does not equal compromise, let alone consensus. Moreover, as we found out at a meeting we convened in July there is a significant group of conservationists in Cache Valley who believe we are not even seventy-five percent of the way toward compromise. This information was conveyed to UDOT in a timely manner. To summarize, I believe that a generally acceptable compromise is possible, but it can only be reached by continued hard work seeking to narrow the differences that still exist, not by premature and unilateral statements that consensus has been reached. RESPONSE TO BRIDGERLAND AUDUBON LETTER (APPENDIX B PAGE 16) The Bridgerland Audubon Society (BAS) provided extensive comments on the FEIS. I was the author of that letter, although I no longer hold an official position with BAS. Unfortunately, I believe most of the concerns that were raised in the BAS letter were dismissed with conclusory statements using circular 6 �reasoning. While UDOT may feel it has adequately addressed this letter, I hope the FHWA and EPA will make an independent assessment of these concerns and how well UDOT has responded to them. What follows are items related to the BAS letter that I feel are particularly significant. It is not nearly an exhaustive list. 1. Since AASHTO allows for design exceptions, they are not genuinely standards. Thus, the "written-in-stone" portrayal UDOT has given to the public over the years is incorrect. Moreover, UDOT still fails to state what legal authority AASHTO has, perhaps because it has no legal authority (Appendix B, page 17). 2. On Appendix B page 25 it is stated that treatment of clear zones has been more clearly defined in the ROD. Even if true, this is yet another case of not presenting the public with correct (or clear) information until the public is largely no longer part of the process. prepare an SEIS. That is, its yet another reason to Moreover, BAS Table 3 was correct, what was wrong was that UDOT had failed to explain what "typical improved area" means in its FEIS, thus defeating informed public participation. 3. On Appendix B page 27, UDOT indicates that recreation isn't emphasized in Logan Canyon, and that it isn't a recreation area. That analysis ignores the Forest Service signs welcoming visitors to the "Logan Canyon Recreation Area," it ignores the Forest Service's attempts to get highway enhancement funds to show off Logan Canyon's many recreational attractions, it ignores 7 �the brown (i.e., recreational) FHWA or UDOT signs pointing the way to Logan Canyon, it ignores the clear direction in the Forest plan that Logan Canyon will be managed primarily for recreation. Under UDOT's constrained analysis, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (also managed by the Forest Service) would not be a recreation area because its not absolutely only used for recreation (grazing is allowed in some areas). I prefer the more pragmatic duck test: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc., it is a duck. area. Under that test Logan Canyon is a recreation And neither UDOT or the Forest Service can reinterpret the law in an inappropriately constrained way--and the law makes it clear that when the managing agency designates an area a recreation area in its plans, that area must be treated as a 4(f) area. 4. On Appendix B page 28 UDOT frets about having to concern itself with "hundreds" of species. Only 27 species were asked about, and now with the public largely removed from this process something has finally been said about them (see Appendix A, USFS Biological Assessment). Moreover, not only does the Forest Service have to do a biological assessment before a decision document is signed, it must do the assessment before the decision is made which certainly has not been the case here. 5. UDOT says on Appendix B page 29 only a Forest Plan Amendment will be required, not a revision. However, conservationists have long contended a much more significant revision will be required. Revisions are required when the basic 8 �output of goods and services from a forest are altered. I believe the modified preferred alternative will meet that test by transforming Logan Canyon into yet another Wasatch-Cache National Forest high-speed conduit, rather than the singular peaceful and quiet ride in a major canyon that it currently is. In fact, Logan Canyon's beauty is not only of forest-wide singularity, it is of national significance, as a soon-to-be-released national article will demonstrate. 6. Some pages are duplicated incorrectly beginning on about Appendix B page 29 to 31. 7. While the Forest Service has evaluated the Logan River for Wild and Scenic status (Appendix B pages 29 to 31), it has also said that new information could cause a reevaluation. Such information was recently provided by Mr. Drew Parkin who is one of the nation's premier experts on wild and scenic rivers. He concluded most of the Logan River within the highway project area qualifies as a recreational river. to the Forest Service. His report has been submitted UDOT should more fully consider the ramifications of such a designation, and not just state that there will be no effect due to the project. 8. Appendix B page 32 indicates it would be speculative to worry about land use changes if the land exchange occurs. The land exchange will occur because authorizing legislation has been passed by Congress and signed by the President. And to compare Forest Service land use policy with Utah State Lands Board policy is like comparing night and day (I'll leave it to you to decide 9 �which is the benighted agency). There will be changes in land management and it is disingenuous to ignore that fact. In particular, the need for "laydown" fencing should be reconsidered because it is unlikely there will be cows to keep off the highway. 9. On Appendix B page 33 UDOT responds improperly to the 4(f) issues that are raised. As indicated above, all of Logan Canyon is a recreation area, its not a few parking sites. Moreover, the reason for selecting the 4(f) sites was not to protect parking, but rather to protect aesthetics, hiking, and exploration. These are the protected features or activities (see Appendix B page 34). Furthermore, not only is the conservationists' alternative feasible and prudent, it also does not produce any genuinely unusual situations precluding its selection. And when a feasible and prudent alternative fails to meet transportation needs, the needs must be reassessed, which UDOT has not done. Failure to meet transportation needs does not mean an alternative automatically causes an unusual situation precluding its selection. 10. The concerns raised on Appendix B page 35 are indeed specific to the Logan Canyon Highway project since these species occur nowhere else, and failure to address the question runs contrary to Eugene Kleckley's (FHWA) written assurance that all of our concerns would be addressed. 11. Over the years UDOT has repeatedly refused to consider 10 �slow vehicle turnouts as an alternative to passing lanes. However, these are a practicable alternative to the passing lanes contemplated between mileposts 391.6 to about milepost 396.5 that would avoid wetlands impacts (see Appendix B page 36 and ROD pages 32 to 34). As we have often pointed out to UDOT, slow vehicle turnouts are successfully used in several states. And UDOT has told us that they have the statutory authority to use slow vehicle turnouts. Therefore, they must be used in preference to passing lanes where wetlands impacts will occur. Additionally, while UDOT partially responded to BAS's concerns on Appendix B page 36 by reducing the road width to 34feet between mileposts 391.6 and 399.8, this response was incomplete. UDOT fails to point out why it does not plan to leave roadway width at 26-feet in section 1b of the canyon (mileposts 387.5 to 391.6). If 26-feet is a practicable alternative in section 1a (mileposts 383.5 to 387.5), why is that not practicable in section 1b, where the canyon is virtually as narrow and wetlands/riparian impacts likely as great? Furthermore, UDOT dismisses BAS's concerns about wetlands mitigation in sections 1a and 1b by saying "the commentor . . . felt" (ROD page 33)there was a poor likelihood of revegetation success. However, it was not a matter that I poor likelihood of success. "felt" there was a Rather, I cited recent scientific - iterature--produced by scientists working for the very agency l whose land will be impacted (the Forest Service)--stating there is a poor likelihood revegetation will be successful in areas 11 �such as sections 1a and 1b (see Appendix B page 37). If the scientific literature that I cited is somehow flawed UDOT should cite "better" information. That's how science works. demands the use of good science. And NEPA Until then, it appears UDOT has no scientific basis for claiming it can reclaim the kinds of wetlands that exist in sections 1a and lb. Finally, UDOT still feels simply stating best management practices will be used is sufficient to meet water quality mandates (Appendix B page 37, see also ROD page 32). otherwise. The law is Moreover, UDOT has failed to adequately coordinate with the Utah Division of Water Rights (see Appendix B page 6) which feels UDOT has likely understated the water quality impacts of the project. Thus, UDOT is too vague about how it will mitigate water quality impacts and has likely underestimated those impacts, yet UDOT wants approval to proceed with this project. That is not how NEPA intends environmental review to proceed. 12. An inability to do a "before and after" (ie, cumulative) comparison of wetlands and aesthetic impacts in the already-widened section of Logan Canyon with the project area would be unfortunate (Appendix B page 38). However, I believe that if future aesthetic conditions of the road can be predicted in the project area, past conditions in the already-widened ' section can also be estimated. For example, there are certainly many old photos of the canyon that could be used for aesthetic comparisons, and many of the old wetlands have left "footprints" 12 �of their existence. While not an ideal scientific situation, to simply state that no useful cumulative comparisons can be made between the project area and the lower canyon overstates the situation. UDOT says the Forest Service feels the presentation of visual quality data was more meaningful when presented in a way unlike that in the rest of the FEIS (Appendix B page 38). Why did UDOT let the Forest Service dictate this approach when BAS-and several others--made it clear in their comments on the DEIS that this was not a more illuminating approach? MAJOR FLAWS APPARENT IN THE ROD What follows are additional major flaws that I perceive in the ROD. 1. Again, this is not an exhaustive list. On page 40 of the ROD UDOT mistakenly thinks only an irreversible commitment of resources can invoke NEPA relative to 4(f) designation. Actually the test is whether designating a 4(f) site is a Federal action significantly affecting the human environment. The selection--or more importantly, lack of selection--of 4(f) sites in Logan Canyon meets that test and certainly warranted at least a FONSI or an EA. 2. On page 18 of the ROD UDOT says the Forest Service will issue a transportation easement not the special use permit described in the FEIS. What is the significance of that change? If one of these involves the Forest Service conveying a property right while the other is merely a license, this is a significant 13 �change, and the public has not had a chance to comment or be involved in this decision. 3. As I have discussed in several of our meetings, the exact location and size of staging areas must be spelled out. This is a major project impact that has not been previously addressed. 4. I have already mentioned the tendency towards unwarranted conclusory statements in regards to how the BAS letter was addressed. That same problem is particularly evident in the defensive discussion on purpose and need on pages 27 to 29 of the ROD. As I said above, the safety data were wrong in the FEIS, are still wrong, and question begging rhetoric does not alleviate that problem. Likewise, the discussions related to traffic volume predictions, the associated level of service, the utility of SR 14 as a comparison to u.S. Highway 89, and AASHTO standards are mostly just defensive and conclusory. 5. On Appendix A page 7 there is a critical UDOT memorandum. First, under the logic developed in this memorandum, there is little or no safety rationale for the 40-feet wide road UDOT still proposes in much of the canyon. All of the remaining proposed 40-feet wide highway could just as well be 34-feet wide. UDOT should strongly consider this fact as a means of reaching a generally acceptable compromise in the canyon. However there is also a very disturbing remark made in this memo. It is stated: "[A]nd given the fact that we would be able to proceed with the construction of the project . . ." if the 14 �road width is reduced to 34-feet, going to five foot shoulders is acceptable. Did UDOT decide to go to a 34-feet width instead of a 40-feet between mileposts 391.6 to 399.8 because of its goodfaith discussions with conservationists or because EPA and/or the Corps of Engineers told UDOT they would not get a 404 permit if they did not make this change? The sentence quoted above certainly implies that someone was holding a very big stick over UDOT's head, and frankly I doubt that it was conservationists. 6. The letters from the EPA and the Utah Division of Water Rights on Appendix B pages 1 to 6 are a must read. In essence, not only has UDOT failed to insure an approved wetlands permit is acquired before the project is authorized, it has also put off significant input on water quality impacts until the as yet nonexistent design phase. We mentioned earlier how UDOT has marginalized the public's ability to participate in this process by its out of sync NEPA process. It appears UDOT is doing the same with expert agencies that should have input to this project prior to its approval, not after. A SUGGESTION FOR COMPROMISE Many of my comments in this letter have been critical of UDOT's approach to the Logan Canyon project. That's because I feel the ROD is as flawed a decision document as were the DEIS and FEIS. However, in the spirit of compromise let me offer a suggested approach. When the final ROD is issued it should only approve 15 �construction of the bridges, namely Burnt Bridge, and Upper and Lower Twin Bridges. These are the "scary" bridges in many people's opinion, and as I understand it the ones that are in need of replacement due to their age. UDOT apparently has funding to reconstruct these bridges and UDOT has indicated that replacing these bridges would take about two years. During that two year period an SEIS could be prepared for the remainder of the project, wherein the public and concerned agencies are given a full opportunity to participate before a decision is made and when it can still have a major effect. Many of the major flaws that I have pointed out in this letter and my letters submitted on behalf of BAS regarding the FEIS and DEIS could be corrected in this process. The numerous other flaws pointed out by other commentors could also be addressed. The EPA's deep concern regarding segmenting a project (see Appendix B pages 1 to 4) might be addressed. Additionally, the constructive and positive discussions UDOT has had with conservationists could continue in a effort to narrow remaining differences. In any event, UDOT does not have funding for nonhridge portions of the project yet, so taking a couple of more years to "get it right" should not be a major problem for UDOT fiscally. You will note that I did not include the Red Banks, Franklin Basin, or Amazon Hollow structures/bridges in this proposal. There is simply too much controversy associated with them (due to their extreme width and wetlands impacts) to expect that they would meet with general acceptance, unlike the three bridges 16 �mentioned above. Moreover, as far as I know, the only "problem" with these bridges is that they are not as wide as UDOT would like. However, they do not seem to be as narrow as the bridges mentioned above (they certainly are not "scary"), and they are not nearing the end of their useful life so far as I know. Thank you for this opportunity to provide these comments on the ROD, and I hope that UDOT and the FHWA will consider this compromise proposal so that a generally acceptable compromise might be reached for the Logan Canyon project. Sincerely, Bruce Pendery 755 Canyon Rd. Logan, Utah 84321 17 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/159">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/159</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 3787997956 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 10610610 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Bruce Pendery to Dave Berg, August 12, 1994 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Bruce Pendery to Dave Berg stating the reasons why a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) should be prepared, explaining that flawed data and lack of public involvement have made the current EIS unusable. Suggests a compromise in which the three "scary" bridges be modified as UDOT has stated while the SEIS is prepared. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Pendery, Bruce Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Natural resources conservation areas Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994-08-12 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 10 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd10_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/cee3f8d274ffdcbdb0ab055786c20581.pdf c49801def68598979a19782e7748505b PDF Text Text February 10, 1989 Dale Bosworth Supervisor, Wasatch-Cache National Forest 125 South State St. Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111 Dear Dale: I regret I was unable to attend the meeting concerning the Logan Canyon Highway Project on February 3. Unfortunately, it was necessary for me to be out of Logan. I have read the latest (Jan. 20th) version of the Agency Alternative for the project, and I am greatiy concerned. I do not wish to analize it in detail here, but only to give you some general comments: 1. This is basically the high speed alternative in the preliminary DEIS. We appear to be just about where we were over two years (and endless amounts of time and energy) ago. 2. The middle section of the Canyon has been reduced to only 4 milesfrom Right Fork to lower Twin Bridge; we regard the middle section as the entire distance from Right Fork to Ricks Springs. This redesignation, with the attendent upgrading of the road to a 35 mph design (probably 50 mph signing) from Twin Bridge to Ricks Springs is unacceptable, since the consequent environmental damage will be severe. 3. The high speed design of the upper section will result in unacceptable environmental impacts, particularly in the Beaver Creek and Summit sections. 4. There are several safety concerns v/ith respect to the placement of passing lanes, especially in the Dugway and near the Limber Pine turnout. 5. The implementation of this alternative requires 45 (!) ammendments to the Forest Plan, surely a new worlds record for any forest plan involving a single project. The cumulative effect of this large number of ammendments is such that a major change in The Plan will be required - a revision, with everything that implies. Attempts to get by with an ammendment will certainly be appealed. 6. The Agency Alternative has little detail, making analysis of its impacts by citizens not throughly acquainted with both the area and the previous history almost impossible. I f it appears as such in the EIS, the EIS will be challenged as not meeting NEPA criteria. 7. The cover letter sent with the alternative, bearing the signatures of the three agency engineers, attempts to disclaim the alternative as a IIpreferred alternative. This is, to say the least, disingeneous. Any alternative that is endorsed by a Forest Service repll �presentative is clearly destined to become the "preferred alternative." I wish to repeat something live said in previous meetings with you: we accepted the Forest Plan on the assumption it was to be taken seriously by you. It states, e.g., that liThe road will not be raised to a higher standard than existing." (Chapter 6, p. 236). Other places in the plan are clear about maintining the scenic quality of the highway (VQO classification, e.g.). You have recently designated the highway as a "Scenic Byway". If the Plan had proposed the kinds of changes found in the Agency Alternative, it certainly would have been appealed. To abandon the Plan now, under pressure from UDOT and FHWA, is to break faith with the environmental community and reduce Forest Service credibility to a new low. Stm.:ere 1y, ,i J , cc: Dave Baumgartner Tom Lyon Dick Carter UWA Steve Flint Bruce Pendery Bridgerland Audubon Rudy Lukez Utah Chapter, Sierra Club / " c· ~- /-/7 t """'-7Z ,"" C . ~ /. rb--' ,-6~'./?. L~ - f. ~ / /'.J.:~ I ~/ . '7 -" Jack T. Spence Dept. of Chemistry Utah State University Logan, ut 84322 -c:-"'<: _ r: _. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/132">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/132</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 528995643 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7675796 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Jack Spence to R. James Naegle, February 1, 1991 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Jack Spence to R. James Naegle identifying the problems with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Spence, Jack T. Subject The topic of the resource Environmental policy Logan Canyon (Utah) Natural resources conservation areas Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1991-02-01 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Forest Service Item Series III Box 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS200_Forest Ser_Item_11.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/967fe14489bf83f439ded681318c2c1c.pdf 8616dafff82f5e2e2ae38aacf0d5796c PDF Text Text LOGAN .CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING March 9, 1987 Attendance: Gale Larson - Valley Engineering Clark Ostergarrd, USFS John Neil, UDOT Larry England, USFWS Jim Naegle, UDOT Duncan Silver, FHWA Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Steve Flint, Audobon Society Jack Spence, Sierra Club Howard Richardson, UDOT ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES There was only one correction to the minutes of the previous \ meeting. Jack Spence had pointed out that a linear model of 1 0 the past trends traffic projection might be preferable to an exponential model because the standard deviation of the extrapolation was better in the linear model, not the r2 value as reported. ITEM 2 - JOHN L. ENGLAND, U. S. FTSH AND vlILDLIFE ' SERVICE COMMENTS John L. England (Larry) discussed the ~laguire Primrose and the FWS interest in Logan Canyon. In summary his comments inpluded: o The latest status report on the Maguire Primrose prepared by the Utah Native Plant Society is probably as good a source of current information as there is presently available. o The FWS has requested to be a cooperating agency in this study. o The Maguire Primrose exists only in the lower end of Logan Canyon, from Wood Camp to the mouth of the Canyon and it is currently on the "threatened" species list. A threatened species receives the same protection, under law, as does an endangered species. 1 I I~vf 7 c �MEETING NOTES Page 2 o It is possible that some of the alternatives could impact one or more known populations. o It will be necessary to prepare a biological assessment for FWS review. o The Maguire Primrose is apparently sensitive to temperature increases and soil type. Some types of improvements could alter cold air drainage pattern or remove trees that presently provide shelter. o The only population of Maguire Primrose the FWS is concerned about (based upon present alternatives) is near Wood Camp. o The basic alternative descriptions include a turnout near Wood Camp. Larry indicated that it might be better to consider some widening at that point and eliminate the turnout in order to keep the traffic moving and away from a sensitive population. o He would recommend preserving as much vegetation as possible. Steve Flint asked about two other species that had been listed in a letter to CH2M HILL. Larry indicated that there were two species presently under review in the Canyon. Stan Nuffer asked if there were guidlines for preparing biological assessments. Larry named some people who had prepared these assessments. They were Stanley Welsh, a botany professor at BYU and Leila Shultz, the Intermountain Herbarium Curator. ITEM 3 - DISCUSS RESULTS OF SCOPING MEETINGS Stan asked members of the ID Team to give their impressions of the scoping meetings that were held on March 3 and 4. o Duncan Silver felt that after the comment period there should be a "roundtable" meeting with government agencies. He did not feel that those representing agencies gave all of the input that they could or should. Overall Duncan did not feel that there were any new issues or alternatives brought out. o Lynn Zollinger did not feel that there were any new issues brought out, but he would like to review a copy of the transcript to be sure. 2 �, MEETING NOTES Page 3 a Jim Naegle feit that there were some alternatives brought out during the meetings but felt that they were probably covered in the general alternative descriptions. o Howard Richardson wondered if there was some value in one comment about getting a "true cross-section" of opinion from area citizens. After some discussion about the value (and purpose of) polls, it was decided that the purpose of scoping meetings were not to "take a vote" but to be sure the full range of issues and possible alternatives were addressed in the study. Those who are interested will generally make their views known. a Fred LaBar did not think that there were any new alternatives brought up in the meetings. However, he did pOlnt out that alternative routes had been brought up in two of the meetings and that a scientific survey (opinion) should be addressed in the EIS. Fred also asked if it was true that it is the law in Utah that slow moving vehicles with traffic behind them must pull off. Duncan Silver said that it is now the law in Utah and that he is , o'n a committee wi th UDOT that is working on a system to provide better advance warning of passing lanes and turnouts. There should be some information available in time to include in the report. '0 Clark Ostergarrd pointed out that the Citizens for the Preservation of Logan Canyon (CPLC) had presented eight specific recommendations for spot improvements and requested that they be given consideration in the study. The eight recommendationsappear to be included in the general list of spot improvements already identified. Steve Flint felt that it was important that people understand that each spot improvement is to be considered on its own merits and that it is not an "all or nothing" alternative. If this is the approach, the CPLC recommendations would be considered along with other spot improvements and the best would be included in the final "spot improvement" alternative. Clark also pointed out that some people had suggested that the highway be planned and designed as a "scenic highway". There was some discussion about standards for scenic highways. Jack Spence 3 �MEETING NOTES Page 4 asked if there is a separate standard for scenic highways. Duncan Silver indicated that there were none. "Standards" for a given scenic road have more or less evolved and generally just address the local situation. Using National Park Service standards was also discussed. Duncan Silver pointed out that truck routes have been designated throughout the US. This was mandated by Congress because of the number of states ~ that had placed limitations on through roads, that -C ~~~)r~eJ was adversely attecting interstate commerce. US-89 through Logan Canyon has apparently been designated /~ I as a truck route. Continued use of the Canyon by ---- ~ truck traffic should be addressed in the study. 0 o Jim Naegle pointed out that a "standard" for Logan Canyon will have to be one that will fit the conditions and still allow the traffic to flow as smoothly as possible. o Lynn Zollinger said that any "standard" less than the modified one may not give enough added capacity to the roadway to make it worthwhile. Any proposed "standard" for the Canyon should be evaluated on its ability to improve the flow of traffic as well as its impact on the environment. Lynn also asked if anyone was anticipating an increase in traffic because of the scenic highway designation. Stan pointed out that other states are being contacted in an effort to determine what, if any, impact a scenic highway designation might have on traffic volumes. Lynn also pointed out that UDOT has been approached by the local cattleman's association about the possibility of fencing the road in the area where cattle range. There is concern about the number of animals killed on the road. A fencing project would require both Forest Service and private participation. o Jack Spence indicated that some hunters had expressed concern to him that an increase in speed might also increase the number of deer killed on the road. Howard Richardson said that the experience of UDOT has been that, besides speed, it is important to keep the vegetation back away from the road so that motorists can better see deer as they approach the road. 4 �MEETING NOTES Page 5 o Steve Flint observed that there were still some people who did not understand the purpose of the scoping meetings and some still believed that a 4-lane roadway alternative was being considered. Steve also restated the need to have a mechanism for sorting out spot improvements and evaluating their impacts individually. o There was some general discussion on the notification of government agencies. Duncan suggested that a copy of the letter which was sent to agencies be attached to the minutes of this meeting when it is mailed to team members. ITEM 4 - EXPANSION OF THE l.D.TEAM Stan Nuffer told the team that there had been some suggestions made during the scoping meetings that interests from Rich County be included on the 1.0. Team. -The Mayor of Logan had also expressed some interest about having a broader representation on the team. After some discussion it was concluded that the team was primarily dealing with technical issues and that the "technical interests" were represented. - Fred LaBar thought that the biggest problem in Rich County was the lack of information. There · is n~ local newspaper and most people do not take the Herald Journal so there is no local vehicle for getting information out. It was decided to invite both the. Rich County people and Logan people to attend I. D. Team meetings t .O see how they operate, but there was not much to be gained by adding additional members to the team. There will be a work meeting with the Logan City Council (tentatively scheduled for March 19) and any team member who can attend is encourqged to do so. ITEM 5 - DAY-LONG SESSION IN THE CANYON TO DEFINE ALTERNATIVES There was some discussion on the value of spending some time in the Canyon and defining the alternatives on the ground. Most team members were supportive of the idea but felt that some time was needed to study what had been done on large scale maps. Stan will have the information put on 1"=200' maps and copies made for the next meeting. A session in the Canyon will be scheduled at that time. ITEM 6 - TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS There was some brief discussion on the traffic projections. Cliff Forsgren said that calculations, assumptions and methodologies for projecting traffic and estimating highway capacity were being double checked and more information would be forthcoming. SLC-STN/33 5 ·1 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/90">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/90</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 175515707 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3520186 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from March 9, 1987 Interdisciplinary team meeting Description An account of the resource Review from previous meetings' minutes, discussion of Maguire Primrose and FWS interest in Logan Canyon, discussion of the results of the scoping meetings, expansion of I.D. team, discussion on the value of spending time in Logan Canyon to define alternatives, and discussion of traffic projections. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Spence, Jack England, Larry Flint, Steve Nuffer, Stanton S. Silver, Duncan Zollinger, Lynn Naegle, Jim Richardson, Howard Ostergard, Clark LaBar, Fred Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Natural resources conservation areas Plant ecology--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-03-09 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_007.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/e1057617494fd0bd12cb6c7b1bf6fa7e.pdf df8ec42dbe33900de2f287b1aad386f9 PDF Text Text United States "Department of ~griculture Forest Service Logan Rangel" District 860 N. 1200 E. Logan, UT 84321 Reply to: Date: 1950 June 1, 1988 Tom Lyon 655 Canyon Road Logan, UT 84321 Deal" Tom: Thank you for your recent letter, Tom. what your concerns are. ' It helped. I think I see more clearly One of the problems I have had with this issue is the fact that people have not clearly understood what we are trying to do. I have struggled with what we should do to better explain our position. Perhaps I am too optimistic to assume that a.-win win situation is possible.' I think it is, but all parties of the issue must want to work to that end. It will not work otherwise. I do not like compromise.' In a compromise no one wins. UDOT and the Federal Highway folks think they have compromised. ' They expect you to do the same, and do not understand why you cannot. In my view, I think they are wrong. Because, if people have a concern it ought to be resolved, even if it takes a long time. Working with people is what we are to do. ' Sometimes we forget this. ' Today the Forest Service is beginning to use mediators to help resolve problems like this. Still, the solution could be a form of compromise assuming the mediator is successful. The consensus is the better solution. Changes to Logan Canyon cannot happen if there is not sound and reasonable purpose for the change. A highway standard taken from some manual is not sufficient reason by itself to justify change. 1 This point will always be a problem between the Forest Service and the highway engineer. l Political compromise is a reality. But if we ever do that, at the expense of the 'environment, then we have abdicated our responsibilities as natural resource managers and public land stewards. ' The higher up the ladder a decision is made, the more political it becomes.' It is in the best interest of all of us to make the decision as low on the ladder as possible. 1 This is one reason why I make the point that we need to work for a win win solution if we can, or there is no deal. A no deal means I will make the recommendations as to what I think ought to be done, but someone else will make the eventual decision. , You understand, I think, what the although skeptically. My problem thought. " They would like to plow courts decide.! Sometimes this is win win is all about. ' is, I am not sure UDOT through the issue, and successful, but leaves I think you support it is comfortable with the if necessary, let the bitter enemies. l The person who will stand up and say, "Well we must have made the right deCision, nobody is happy with it" misses the real point here. Political decision makers sometimes like to talk like that. ' We are better than that. ' FS-6200-28(7·82) �~ ~ompromise is a last resort. , But all sides of this issue will force us into a compromise situation if we cannot work towards a reasonable and proper decision. Tom, your thoughts on va~idating decisions with solid data are good ones. ' We do not want to draw you into a consensus without a good review of the facts. My only hope was, because of the expense of drafting plan after plan, was to at least philosophically agree, so the design people could draft a more accurate plan for review.. This by no means reduces the need for careful study of the results, nor does it lock us into any position.! It was just a starting point. The draft of the draft EIS is not acceptable to anyone I know of at this time. Much work remains to be done on it. ~ Sometimes, Tom, I sound like I am preaching to you. I do not mean to do that. ! But I am confused too. ' As I visit with each of you I hear one thing, but subsequent communication is different. You mentioned the bridges.; Are they an issue now? Rudy told me some time ago that he and one or two other examined the bridges and agreed with the engineer's assessment. , Because of that I haven't worried about the bridges.' , UDOT will not build the type of highway they recommended last. That is not acceptable to the Forest Service. ' The committee of three, are trying to reach consensus on what realistically ought to be done. The ideas I bounced off of you and others were attempts to resolve the issues you mentioned. ' If they do not, then it is back to the idea arena again. ' I think this is a point many do not understand. ' The committee is working for us, you and me. ' Their objective is to design the right highway. ' You ideas and my ideas are just as important as the committees. 1 My fear is that we cannot tear down the walls and work together on this. 1 Right now I do not have either you or the State convinced that this is possible. ' The walls are very thick and high. You fears of a political solution are valid if the walls stay up. ' I think we have solved the riparian and fish habitat issues. : But we have not solved the aesthetic issue yet. ' At least not totally. ' Your concerns have been passed on to the committee with a note from me supporting your concerns. ' The Forest plan is one of the more difficult decisions UDOT must make before they can start work again on the EIS. ; If what they eventually propose and agree to is outside the current direction in the Forest plan, those changes, the environmental documentation, and decision must be addressed in this EIS.! If that is not possible, then a separate environmental document must be prepared.' I do not know which way this will go at this time. We are pushing for them to do it. , You are right, the Forest plan could become a significant issue. Keep up the good work.: S· cerely, District Ranger FS·6200·28(7-82) �~· ~ G cc: Steve Flint Jack Spence Rudy Lukez Dick Carter FS-6200-28(7-82) � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/49">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/49</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 2558578447 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 534141 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Dave Baumgartner, October 4, 1988 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Dave Baumgartner to Steve Flint regarding the role of the National Forest Scenic Byway Program proposing a complementary aesthetic experience in the canyon with improvement of campgrouds and appropriate signs. Proposes the organization of a committee to define standards. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Baumgartner, David Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Natural resources conservation areas Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1988-10-04 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_016.pdf Highway 89;